Minutes of the meeting of Maresfield Parish Council held on Tuesday 18^th April 2006, in the Village Hall, Maresfield

Present:         Cllr W King (Chairman), Cllr K Ogden, Cllr J Gutteridge, Cllr P Tester, Cllr H Fry,

Cllr R Street, Cllr T Sparrow, Cllr C Stevenson, Cllr G Hardy, DCllr F Brown,

DCllr Mrs S Martin, DCllr Mrs P Kennedy & DCllr J Hollins.

Public:            Mr & Mrs Woodgate, Mr J Sensier, Mr Kelvin Williams (Wealden District Council), Mr Tony Godden, Mrs Toni Birkbeck, Mrs T Washer, Mrs Lisa Clarke, Mrs Bonnie Hankin, Mrs Angela Teale,  Mrs Linda Kennard, Mrs Cynthia Flittner &

Ms Kathy Watson (Sussex Express).

The Chairman congratulated the Clerk for attaining his Certificate in Local Council Administration (CiLCA) qualification.

1067    Public Session - All members of the public were present regarding the Parklands Play Area Item, except for Mrs Flittner who attended as an observer.

The Chairman made the following points in reference to the Parklands Play Area Apparatus:

• Objective is to resolve the problem i.e. that the climbing frame leads to young people being able to climb up high and look into the properties of people living in Forest Park.  The screening will also be discussed.
• Other matters of difficulty within the play area are not on the agenda e.g. noise issues.
• This is a neighbour dispute and these can be difficult; all are asked to be mindful of each others' feelings.
• A compromise solution had been discussed by Cllrs R Tester and P Tester and him and subsequently with Mr & Mrs Woodgate and Mr Godden, i.e. splitting up the equipment / reincarnating it, but it transpired that this is not feasible.

Mrs Woodgate made the following points:

• All Councillors have a copy of their letter dated 14^th March 2006 outlining the key issues.
• This is not just a neighbour dispute but also a dispute with the Parish Council
• The apparatus is the main problem being too large for the area and encroaching on privacy in their house.  Furthermore, the screening is unsightly and has not been granted the necessary planning permission.
• The problem of the apparatus has arisen due to lack of communication and lack of direction on the part of the Parish Council.  It is the responsibility of the Parish Council to rectify the situation.
• Mr & Mrs Woodgate would like the apparatus and screening to be removed.
• Due to the lie of the land, the apparatus is located on a raised piece of ground and despite reference in past minutes suggesting that it would be set in a dip, this had not been the case.
• It is not Mr & Mrs Woodgate's wish to see the apparatus moved within the Parklands Play Area and subsequently impinge on someone else’s privacy.
• The Parish Council donated some money towards the purchase of the apparatus.
• As with planning applications, neighbours should be consulted.  Mr and Mrs Woodgate were not invited to the meeting of the Parklands Play Area Sub-Committee, held just prior to the erection of the equipment.
• The model of the play area and the equipment to be placed within it should have been seen and approved by the full Parish Council.

DCllr Mrs P Kennedy

• Noted that in reading a copy of the lease as issued to Maresfield Parish Council, there are a couple of clauses of significance i.e. 3C with reference to responsibility over decisions as to what should be put on the land and 3J regarding nuisance and annoyance to the Landlord or to the owners or occupiers of any neighbouring land or premises.
• This is a Parish Council problem and it is up to the Parish Council to rectify it.

Cllr Street

• Noted that the 1^st clause as mentioned by Mrs Kennedy relates to the letting of the land but not to the use of it.  Therefore, there is nothing there as to use of the play area, so long as this is done in a lawful manner.

Mr Sensier

• Reiterated that this is a problem for the Parish Council to resolve.
• One sub-committee meeting highlighted that Parklands residents were not keen to have the apparatus moved closer to their properties.
• It was a mistake to put this size of equipment on the site, when it was clearly designed for a much larger area.

The Chairman and Councillors noted the following points:

• The equipment is not owned by the Parish Council and it cannot therefore unilaterally decide what to do with it to rectify the problems.
• Donors gave money directly to the New Parklands Residents Association (NPRA) and not to the Parish Council. NPRA bought the equipment, and owns it.
• The Parish Council made a donation towards the Play Area by paying for the fencing.
• Expert advice was  obtained with regard to the positioning of the piece of apparatus.
• If the Parish Council donates money to a body, it has no say as to how the body uses it as long as it does so legitimately.
• Wherever the initial funding came from, the Parish Council rightly or wrongly allowed the apparatus to be put on the site, and the question is what action should  now be taken?
• The layout of the play area was brought to the Parklands Play Area Sub-Committee of the Parish Council in model form; the model did not indicate that there would be any invasion of privacy of the Woodgates or of others.

Toni Birkbeck

• Stated that Playsafe produced large plans showing the area and the pieces of equipment in situ.  This plan was displayed at the Village Fete, within the play area itself and was put before the Parklands Play Area Sub-Committee.
• The first complaint came on the day of the apparatus was installed.  At her request, a representative from the Parish Council visited the play area and approved the site of where the apparatus was installed.

Tony Godden

• NPRA are making every effort to be accommodating.

• At a meeting of the NPRA in November 2005, it was agreed that the equipment could be moved subject to certain conditions, the most significant being that it must go within the Parish to a Council run play area.
• The specific conditions were noted as detailed in Mr Godden’s letter to the Parish Council dated 28^th March 2006.
• The NPRA continues to fund raise for further development of play area i.e. for seating, fencing to segregate the football area from equipment area, other pieces of equipment for the kindergarten kids. 
• A request has come from children that they would like a slide of some description if and when the apparatus is replaced. 
• There is a sign at the play area telling children where they can and can’t go and telling them at what times they can and can’t use the equipment.
• NPRA has had little support since it was established in 2002.
• NPRA has had good intentions in all that they have done to date.

Cllr Fry enquired how much it would cost the Parish Council to remove and re-site the apparatus, noting that any money expended is public money obtained from all Parishioners.

After general discussion it was agreed the approximate cost for supplying an equivalent piece of equipment would be £4080 plus approximately £600 for the removal of the existing equipment, plus VAT.

Mr Godden pointed out that there are regulations by ROSPA regarding the removal and installation of play equipment and that the guarantee of the equipment must also be considered.  It was noted that there would be further installation costs when the item is re-sited i.e. ground works and compliance with safety standards.

It was noted that there are other play areas within the Parish where the equipment could possibly be located.

Cllr Street noted that the Parish Council, Wealden District Council and NPRA should accept joint responsibility for resolving the current situation.

Kelvin Williams, the Business Manager for Planning & Building Control at WDC, stated that it is quite clear that the play equipment doesn’t require planning permission but that the screening does.  WDC would like to know what will be done about the screen.

Cllr P Tester noted that Ann Karas sat on the Parklands Play Area Sub-Committee and gave her approval as far as WDC was concerned.

Cllr Street stated that the current budget has provision for the three play areas, £4100 Nutley, £2200 Maresfield Recreation Ground and £2500 Parklands Play Area.   

However, it was noted that not all of these amounts  could be allocated to resolving the issue at hand  as other costs for the play areas needed to be met throughout the year e.g. maintenance.

Cllr Street added that if the climbing frame was moved to Maresfield Rec, there is money in the budget (approximately £1400) for refurbishment of that play area and the replacement of the climbing frame within it would come into this.

Mrs Kennedy stated that WDC is in no way monetarily responsible for the decisions made by NPRA or the Parish Council with regard to the costs of the equipment on that site. Cllr Street commented that he would have hoped that, out of goodwill, WDC might have helped out financially to resolve the situation.

In summary, the Chairman stated that the cost of removing and replacing the apparatus was £4680 and that an amount of approximately £3900 could be made available from the Parish Council’s current budget leaving a shortfall in the region of £780.  It was pointed out that the budget figures quoted at this stage would need to be reviewed in detail to ensure that other provisions needed for the play areas for the remainder of the year are met.  The Clerk stated that the Parish Council would be holding a meeting on Thursday 27^th April 2006 to discuss play area requirements in detail.

It was noted that if the apparatus is removed from Parklands in the next few weeks then a replacement will need to be installed very shortly afterwards.

DCllr Hollins joins the meeting.

Mr Godden and the other members of the NPRA Committee agreed to retire to discuss the removal and the re-siting of the apparatus and the fact that the amount available this year from the Parish Council’s budget would fall short of their requirement for £4080 to fund suitable replacement equipment.

All members of the NPRA leave the meeting.

The Chairman closed the Public Session.

 1068        Apologies for absence – DCllr N Buck, CCllr T Reid, CCllr F Whetstone, Cllr R Tester and Cllr Mrs S Weekes

The Chairman reported that Mrs Weekes feels unable, due to a succession of personal issues, to continue as a Councillor and has therefore decided that she must resign from the Parish Council.

 1069            Declarations of interest – Cllr P Tester in relation to possible involvement in the physical removal of the apparatus from the Parklands Play Area.

 1070    Parklands Play Area – issues relating to climbing apparatus – It was Agreed that this item would be discussed later in the meeting.

 1071            Minutes:-

1.      Minutes of the Council meeting (21 March 2006) for adoption

With reference to Item 1056.2, Cllr Fry stated that in her report, DCllr Mrs S Martin, had also reported that Unitary Authorities were proposed as part of local government changes.  Cllr Fry stated that he had also noted that at his meeting with a senior official from Mr Milliband’s ministry, it had been very clearly stated that no decision had been made whatsoever regarding Unitary Authorities.

The minutes were Adopted as amended.

2.      Matters arising from these minutes – None.

 1072            Reports by and questions to:-

1.      County Councillors – None.

2.      District Councillors –

DCllr J Hollins reported that the Select Committee is to carry out an investigation into water resources in Wealden.  A meeting will be held on 25^th April with George Wimpey Homes, Enact Energy, Southern Water and the Environment Agency.

Secondly, £13m of government money has been allocated to Wealden District Council to build 233 affordable dwellings over the next 3 years.  WDC estimates that it needs 874 affordable homes per year.  There are currently over 2500 people on the housing waiting list in WDC with a significant proportion coming from Wealden parishes or adjacent parishes. WDC has not yet specifically allocated people to the proposed homes.

DCllr Hollins keenly awaits Maresfield Parish Council’s LDF input.

1073    Council bodies: Actions, minutes and reports by, and questions to, Chairmen:-

1.   Civil Protection

The last meeting was scheduled for 30^th March but had to be cancelled as it was not quorate.  John Wood from WDC had been invited to discuss Emergency Planning with the Committee.  He is currently on leave and an alternative meeting date cannot therefore be arranged until he returns.

2.   Environment & Maintenance

The minutes of the last meeting were circulated with the papers.

Reference Item 7.1 the proposed all weather training pitch on Maresfield Recreation Ground, discussions regarding the re-siting of the Parklands play apparatus may be pertinent in this regard i.e. will there be a conflict?  DCllr Mrs Kennedy remarked that this area is a recreation ground and not a sports field.

It was noted that Councillors footpath walking will be carried out in August.

3.      Finance & Administration

                                      i.      Month 12 (End-Of-Year) Financial Reports

The End of Year unaudited figures show an underspend of £11,531, which coupled with income (other than precept) of £2254 income other than from precept gives a total of  £13,785 added to balances.

The opening balance at the start of 2006/07 is £34,804.

£7202 of which will be committed to expenditure in 2006/07, leaving £27,602 to be carried forward to 2007/08.

Cllr Street noted that as advised by the Internal Auditors, the Parish Council needs to build up reserves to a level of £30,000 and that the situation as described shows an improvement over past reserve levels.

That Chairman noted that he had received a number of letters and enquires concerning the perceived anomaly between the percentage rises in the Council’s budget and precept levels, and that Cllr Street will be addressing this issue in an article for the spring edition of The Parish Matters.  Furthermore, he asked all councillors to be up to speed on this subject.

                                                ii.      Review of Risk Assessment

·         This needs to be reviewed on an annual basis.

·         The document wasn’t circulated in its entirety and there were a number of abbreviations which not all Councillors understood.  Subsequently, a complete version including a glossary of terms had been circulated with the meeting papers.

·         Cllr Street explained that it is necessary to ensure those items on the document are still relevant and should remain on it.  Furthermore, any items not included need to be added.  Amendments should be sent to the Clerk by no later than 28^th April.  ACTION:  All Councillors.

      Cllr Street stated that at the last F&A meeting held on 11^th April 2006, targets and criteria for budget increases were discussed as were criteria for utilisation of reserves.

4.      Planning

Cllr Ogden report that a landowners' consultation was held in Maresfield Village Hall on 8^th April 2006 to discuss potential development of the land south of the village.  It was noted that this not for the Parish Council to decide or act on at present, absent any clear mandate from the village and any detail as to the proposals[W L K1] .

Referring to DCllr Hollins report of the allocation of £13m to affordable housing, Cllr Ogden noted that from this allocation of money to housing associations it had been estimated that an amount of approximately £2m was as yet unallocated and he hoped that the Parish Council could claim some of it for its own affordable housing needs.

                                                  i.      Proposal for the adoption of Local Development Framework papers

The Chairman stated that these documents fairly represent a wide range of views obtained from the village meetings, interviews and other representations.  It was noted that these documents are drafts and not final documents. 

Cllr Fry expressed concern over some of the sections contained in the sustainability table at the end of each document particularly in reference to the provision of public transport.   ACTION:  Cllr Fry to set out his concerns at the Planning Committee meeting on 24^th April 2006.

It was noted that the Village Design Statement (VDS) produced by the Nutley Conservation Group (NCG) will be appended to the Council’s Nutley LDF document. Subject to those points, it was Agreed that the documents should be put out for consultation. ACTION: Clerk.

5.            Policy Committee

                                                  i.      Proposal for the adoption of changes to Committee Structures and other related changes

It was noted that the paper before Council was the culmination of discussion at the last Policy Committee meeting based on proposals put to it by the Clerk.  The Clerk stated that the reasons for proposing changes include the following:

·         There are thought to be too many committees at present.

·         Too many meetings are generated

·         Quorum issues have arisen as some committees have too few Councillor members.

It was Agreed that Civil Protection issues should be handled by the Environment Committee and that Ashdown Business Park issues should be handled by the Planning Committee. With these amendments the proposed structure was Adopted for use at the Council’s Annual Meeting on 16^th May 2006,

Cllr Gutteridge enquired as to the status of non-councillor members i.e. do they have a vote / how many should there be etc.  The Clerk confirmed that they cannot have a vote as they are not an elected Member, however, the views of non-councillors should obviously be taken into account when Councillors make decisions. 

It was Agreed that the Chairman would write to all non-councillor members of committees to update them on the revised structure after the Council’s Annual Meeting on 16^th May 2006.  ACTION:  Chairman.

Cllr Fry recommended that once adopted the revised committee structure should be reviewed after one year in operation.  This was Agreed.

Another means of improving the quality of the Council’s work is to have better trained councillors and better trained committee chairmen.  Cllr Sparrow confirmed that he will in due course make proposals in this regard.

                                                ii.      Proposal for the adoption of an Affordable Housing policy

It was Agreed to defer this item until the Full Council meeting in either May or June 2006.

6.    Strategy Sub-Committee

Cllr Sparrow reported that the last meeting concentrated particularly on bringing health services back into the villages, and work in relation to youth, carers and elderly.

Cllr Sparrow confirmed that the WDC Community Grant has been given to Maresfield and surrounding parishes over a period of 3 years to keep the Easylink service running and to establish a Community Transport Partnership based in North Wealden.  Cllr Sparrow expressed his thanks to WDC for their support in this matter.  DCllr Hollins expressed his thanks to Cllr Sparrow for all his efforts.

7.    Traffic & Transport Committee

The Clerk reported that for the second time in succession the meeting was not held, as the last meeting schedule for 6^th April was not quorate and that prior to it only had two Members in attendance.

The Clerk stated that Council must direct the Committee as to how it proceeds until the Council’s Annual Meeting. 

It was Agreed that the meeting of the Committee scheduled for 4^th May 2006 should not be held and that following the Council’s Annual Meeting a letter of explanation would be sent to non-councillor members of this committee seeking their continued involvement in this area of work.

It was Agreed that key items / issues currently sitting with this Committee would be carried forward to the appropriate Committee in the new structure.

The Chairman closed the meeting and reverted to Public Session.  The members of the NPRA who had retired all returned to the meeting.

Mr Godden made the following points:

• The erection of the screen had been a joint effort, as the netting had been donated by WDC, the concrete by F W Tyler Ltd and at a cost of approximately £400 to the NPRA it had purchased the posts and installed the screen.
• Regarding the climbing apparatus issue, the NPRA is willing to accept the amount of £3900 providing a further payment is forthcoming in the financial year 2007/08 to cover the shortfall of approx £894 (including VAT paid by NPRA).
• NPRA want to retain the safety matting in situ to prevent further costs being incurred for the installation of the replacement equipment.
• NPRA hoped that the climbing apparatus could be installed at Maresfield Rec. so that the children of Maresfield can benefit.  It was noted that the Parish Council would have to supply any safety matting etc required.

The Chairman asked if Mr Godden on behalf of NPRA, would be happy to work with Cllrs P Tester, R Tester and R Street to finalised the detail of the action that had been agreed in principle at tonight’s meeting, so that it can be brought before the next Council meeting. 

Mr Godden agreed to this action and will report back to the NPRA Committee and Parklands residents.  He noted that the Parklands community was very disappointed and frustrated at the lack of support they have received to date.  Noting that they were disappointed with the Parish Council but even more so with WDC who were responsible for starting up the Residents Association.  As an association NPRA has numerous other commitments to the residents aside from the Play Area which has taken up much of their time.

The Chairman apologised on behalf of the Parish Council noting that lessons will be learned from this situation.

Mrs Woodgate thanked NPRA for compromising and allowing a way forward to be found and stated that Forest Park residents were keen to maintain relations with NPRA and be involved in future developments at the play area.

The Chairman asked if the screening should remain in place until after the climbing apparatus has been removed, or removed immediately: Mrs Woodgate said that she preferred the former.  The Chairman asked Mr Williams if WDC would hold on the enforcement issue concerning the screen, given that the most likely complainant was asking for it to stay pro tem.  Mr Williams asked for a letter from the Parish Council noting its intention regarding the screening and indicated that WDC would stay its hand on that basis. 

All members of the public leave the meeting except Mrs Flittner.

Cllr Hardy leaves the meeting.

The Chairman re-opened the meeting.

1070            Parklands Play Area – issues relating to climbing apparatus –

It was noted that the Parish Council could buy the replacement piece of equipment and reclaim the VAT.

Cllr Sparrow noted that this was a good compromise solution but that the detail need working out before a final decision can be made. 

Cllr Street noted that the Council’s Financial Regulations stipulate that it cannot make decisions until all relevant financial information is to hand.

A short discussion was held concerning how this matter should be brought to a conclusion.  The Clerk stated that this issue must remain as a Council decision as it affects several of the Council’s committees and has Parish wide considerations.

The Clerk noted that a meeting is scheduled for 27^th April 2006 to discuss exactly what work is required in terms of maintaining the existing play areas and this will allow the exact costings required to be detailed.

ACTION:  Cllrs R Tester, P Tester, R Street to work with Mr Godden to finalise details of the action agreed in principle and to produce a complete scheme of action and of financial issues to resolve the matter as discussed at the meeting in time for circulation prior to Council’s meeting on 16^th May 2006.

Re. Mr Williams request for a letter from the Parish Council noting its intention regarding the screening, it was agreed to send such a letter to WDC.  ACTION:  Clerk

1074            Outside bodies’ reports –

Cllr Sparrow gave the following report:

• AIRS has a board meeting on 19^th April 2006.
• LSP is working hard with WDC to revise and focus community strategy to tie it in with LDF work.  T definition of LSP objectives to more focussed.
• WDALC has set up a management committee that has met now for the first time and is looking at its role with parishes with a view to becoming more proactive. 

DCllr Mrs Kennedy leaves the meeting.

1075            Chairman’s Report –followed by questions to Chairman

The Chairman stated that he had not received a response to his letter to Mr Miliband.  Cllr Fry stated that he also had attended one of the briefing sessions and gave Mr Miliband a note proposing some form of independent supervising body for the County Council, noting that he had not received a reply either.

Cllr Sparrow noted that regarding the Maresfield Village Development Meeting held on 8^th April 2006,  the Courier article had led the Leader of WDC to think that the proposal had been made by the Community itself.  Cllr Sparrow confirmed that he had corrected him in this regard.

1076            Clerk's Report –followed by questions to Clerk

1.      Councillor vacancy

The Clerk noted that he had only received two registrations of interest noting that the deadline is 21^st April 2006. 

1077            Payments to be made for approval

It was noted that the amount of £500 payable to Mr P Coxon was the final payment for development Phase 1 of the Council’s website.

The payment to ICA relates to ongoing photocopier maintenance charges.

Payments totalling £5,158.89 were Approved.

1078            Quality Council submission – progress update

The Clerk reported that there are only two outstanding modules.  Following completion of these he will discuss the draft submission with senior Clerk’s and other experts to measure its suitability.

The Clerk noted that one possible issue with the submission is the fact that some Councillors have not always given their apologies for absence from meetings. 

DCllr Mrs S Martin leaves the meeting.

1079    Village Fetes – organisation and content

Assistant Clerk stated that work is progressing on these events and that the rota for assisting with set up and manning of the marquee will be distributed to Councillors shortly.  ACTION:  Assistant Clerk.

Cllr P Tester mentioned that there was the possibility of some youth input.

1080    Annual Assembly – guest speaker, organisation and content

The Assistant Clerk circulated the Draft Schedule and asked for feedback from Councillors.  ACTION:  All to provide urgent input and feedback.

1081            Communications

1.      The Parish Matters – The Assistant Clerk asked for all articles to be submitted by no later than 28^th April 2006.  Furthermore, volunteers for labelling, stamping and stuffing envelopes were sought (one immediate offer made by Cllr P Tester). The Chairman invited the Assistant Clerk to show whose turn it was. ACTION:  All.

1082            Sussex Police Authority – position statement on merger with Surrey Police force

The Chairman asked whether Council should take a view on this matter as the Sussex Police Authority exists to control these matters.  It was noted that Danehill Parish have written with their objections to the merger.  ACTION:  Cllr Fry to pursue this matter and attend the SPA Stakeholders meeting in June and report back to Council.

DCllr Hollins enquired with reference to the LDF, if it would be an appropriate time to consider the Italian Camp in Fairwarp as a site for affordable housing.  Cllr Ogden noted that there is a problem regarding sewage in this area and this would be exacerbated by additional dwellings, noting that Old Forge Lane is considered to be a more appropriate site in Fairwarp.  Cllr Street noted that the issues of flooding and sewage are of particular significance in Fairwarp village.  It was Agreed to discuss this matter at the forthcoming Planning Committee meeting on 24^th April 2006.

Date of next meeting, Annual Meeting - 16 May 2006 (Nutley)

There being no further business the meeting closed 10.07.